Tag Archives: culture change

Essay 2, Chapter 6: Illusion, Irony and Tragedy

6 Replies

The sixth chapter of the second part of Hunter’s book (To Change The World) is “Illusion, Irony and Tragedy.” Here’s the abstract from www.jamesdavisonhunter.com:

Politics has become a “social imaginary” that defines the horizon of understanding and the parameters for action. What is never challenged is the proclivity to think of the Christian faith and its engagements with culture in political terms. For all, the public has been conflated with the political. But the ressentiment that marks the way they operate makes it clear that a crucial part of what motivates politics is a will to dominate. However, for politics to be about more than power, it depends upon a realm that is independent of the political process. The deepest irony is that the Christian faith has the possibility of autonomous institutions and practices that could be a source of ideals and values that could elevate politics to more than a quest for power. Instead, by nurturing its resentments, they become functional Nietzcheans, participating in the very cultural breakdown they so ardently strive to resist.

http://jamesdavisonhunter.com/to-change-the-world/chapter-abstracts/

“It is not an exaggeration to conclude that the public witness of the church today has become a political witness…” (p. 169) Hunter starts with this assertion, then quickly moves to “So what?”

The first problem is the fact that the state can’t solve all human problems. Laws reflect values, but, as Hunter explains, they “cannot generate values, or instill values, or settle the conflict over values.” (p. 171) The belief that the state can truly address the principal concerns of society is an illusion.

The second problem is a series of ironies:

  • Politics is only about power unless it can depend on a sphere that is independent. Values have to be more than political slogans, but Christians have done more to politicize values over the last half century than any other group in society.
  • The political activity of Christians has been counterproductive to the goals they seek to obtain. Hunter says, “But the consequence of the whole-hearted and uncritical embrace of politics by Christians has been… to reduce Christian faith to a political ideology…” (p. 172)
  • Political participation often becomes an avoidance of responsibility. In Hunter’s words, “It is… much easier to vote for a politician who champions child welfare than to adopt a baby born in poverty…” (p. 172)

The final problem is the conformity of the church to “the spirt of the age,” the making of politics the church’s principal witness to the world. Christians did not create the present political culture, but they have become full participants in it. When Christians build their identity on the resentment and hostility that is today’s political arena, they are accentuating the things that separate them from non-Christians. They are contributing to the very cultural breakdown they are protesting against.

Essay 2, Chapter 5: The Neo-Anabaptists

7 Replies

These days I’m summarizing James Davison Hunter’s To Change The World. The book is made up of three separate essays; we’re up to the fifth chapter of the second essay. This chapter is entitled “The Neo-Anabaptists.” Here’s the abstract from Hunter’s website:

The mythic ideal that animates the neo-Anabaptist position is the ideal of true and authentic New Testament Christianity and the primitive church of the apostolic age. Constantinianism is a multifaceted heresy that surfaced and resurfaced throughout history. The archetype of neo-Constantinianism is the founding of the American republic, which has a strong view of the church and a separatist impulse. While the neo-Anabaptists attempt to reject it, they are also defined and depend upon it.

http://jamesdavisonhunter.com/to-change-the-world/chapter-abstracts/

The Christian Left and the Neo-Anabaptists share several characteristics: they tend to reject undiluted capitalism, they tend to be from the upper classes socio-economically, and they reject the discourse of the Christian Right. There aren’t a lot of Neo-Anabaptists in the United States, but the movement has a growing appeal among the younger generations.

Neo-Anabaptists seek a return to the pure Christianity of the New Testament church. (Could that be why so many within my movement are drawn to this viewpoint?—Tim) Part of the restoration spirit of the original Anabaptists was a rejection of infant baptism, insisting on adult baptism (hence the name of the movement). Anabaptist teaching continues in small groups like the Quakers, the Mennonites, etc. Neo-Anabaptists have adopted many of the teachings, but come from a broad range of Christian groups.

The Edict of Constantine is seen as one of the historical low points, the moment when the church fully sold herself to the State. The church embraced the powers of this world, with their violence and war. An ethic of coercion and power became common within Christianity. Thus the Neo-Anabaptists consider that the greatest harm to the church was done by the church itself. Their ressentiment focuses on this blending of church and State.

According to Hunter, the goal of the Neo-Anabaptists is “to lead theology and the church to a genuinely postsecular self-understanding.” (p. 160, emphasis Hunter’s) They emphasize the sharp contrast between the church and the world. They see worship as the central calling of Christianity.

Hunter points out that the Neo-Anabaptists, despite claiming to reject the systems of this world, have adopted the language of politics, speaking time and again of “the politics of Jesus.” Like the other two groups mentioned, Neo-Anabaptists make no distinction between the public and the political.

Hunter’s principal accusation against the Neo-Anabaptists is that they define themselves in terms of the very system they reject. More than standing for something, they stand against something. By using political terms, they themselves become political.

Essay 2, Chapter 4: The Christian Left

3 Replies

In our walk-through of James Davison Hunter’s To Change The World, we’re up to the fourth chapter of the second essay. This essay is entitled “The Christian Left.” Here’s the abstract from Hunter’s website:

Progressives have always been animated by the myth of equality and community and therefore see history as an ongoing struggle to realize these ideals. The key word in the progressive lexicon is justice. The biblical tradition that Christian progressives appeal to is the prophetic tradition in its condemnation of the wealthy for their abuse of the poor, the weak, and the marginalized. However, in its commitment to social change through politics and politically oriented social movements, in its conflation of the public with the political, in its own selective use of Scripture to justify political interests, and in its confusion of theology with national interests and identity, the Christian Left imitates the Christian Right.

http://jamesdavisonhunter.com/to-change-the-world/chapter-abstracts/

Within the U.S., the Christian Left has not been particularly strong, at least compared with its overseas success in movements like liberation theology. Inside the U.S., politically progressive Christians were principally found within the mainline denominations, although there is now a growing number of evangelicals that align themselves with the political left.

Whereas conservatives are angry over the harm done to their nation, progressives focus on the harm done to the weak and disadvantaged. They show great hostility toward the leaders of the Christian Right, feeling that these men have hijacked the Christian faith. Not only that, but those of the Christian Left feel that the Christian Right has severely damaged their country through their actions. The ressentiment of the Left is not directed toward non-Christians but toward the Christian Right.

The Christian Left also has its own quest for power, first for “reclaiming the Christian faith,” then spreading into the political arena. Though the Christian Left often claims to be non-partisan, their opposition to the Right typically leads them to support the agenda of the Democratic party, and many progressives, in fact, are active within that party.

The grand irony is that, in opposing the Christian Right, the Christian Left ends up using the same methods of their opponents. As Hunter says at the end of this chapter: “The political goals are different, but the realpolitik is, in essence, identical to the long-standing instrumentalization of the Christian conservative constituency by the Republican party—control over the power of the State.” (p. 149)

Essay 2, Chapter 2: Power and Politics in American Culture

3 Replies

We’re going through James Davison Hunter’s To Change The World chapter by chapter over the next few weeks. Here’s the abstract of the second essay chapter 2 “Power and Politics in American Culture” from Hunter’s website:

Power now does the work that culture used to do. This is seen in the tendency toward the politicization of nearly everything. Politicization is most visibly manifested in the role ideology has come to play in public life, the well-established predisposition to interpret all of public life through the filter of partisan beliefs, values, ideals, and attachments. As a consequence, we find it difficult to think in ways to address public problems or issues in any way that is not political.

Politicization means that the final arbiter within most of social life is the coercive power of the state. Our times amply demonstrate that it is far easier to force one’s will upon others through legal and political means than it is to persuade them or negotiate compromise with them. What adds pathos to this situation is the presence of ressentiment, defined by a combination of anger, envy, hate, rage, and revenge.

http://jamesdavisonhunter.com/to-change-the-world/chapter-abstracts/

This chapter describes what Hunter calls “the politicization of everything.” The state has become the principal framework through which we understand everything. The language of politics shapes our understanding of our lives, our purposes and even ourselves. People are known publicly as pro-lifers or pro-choicers, liberal or conservative, Democratic or Republican, traditionalist or progressive. We even apply many of these political terms to our religious views, defining religion in terms of politics instead of vice versa.

We also have come to view political solutions as the only viable ones for public problems. That’s why holding power seems to be so important to us, since we see this power as the only way to have a voice regarding social life.

Adding depth to this situation is what Nietzsche called ressentiment. It is a combination of anger, envy and revenge as a political motivation. It is grounded in a sense of entitlement and a belief that one has been wronged. Hunter doesn’t claim that everyone is power-hungry and resentment-filled; he does say that these are the dominant forces driving our political culture today.

Faith has become just as politicized as everything else. Outsiders view Christians as being very political, and Christians describe themselves in political terms. Hunter will discuss the three dominant political positions in American Christianity: Conservative, Progressive and Neo-Anabaptist. That will take place over the next few chapters.

Essay 2, Chapter 1: The Problem of Power

2 Replies

We’re going through James Davison Hunter’s To Change The World chapter by chapter over the next few weeks. The second essay is entitled “Rethinking Power.” Here’s the abstract of the second essay chapter 1 “The Problem of Power” from Hunter’s website:

When faith and its culture flourish, it does so, in part, because it operates with an implicit view of power in its proper place. When faith and its culture deteriorate, it does so, in part, because it operates with a view of power that is corrupt.

http://jamesdavisonhunter.com/to-change-the-world/chapter-abstracts/

The second essay will look at how power is understood and practiced in today’s America. Hunter will especially focus on the church’s relationship to this power. The blunt truth is that the church has allowed the world to define power and to dictate how it is gained and used.

What we need is a new understanding of power, which is what Hunter will seek to present in this essay.